Summary
The Court affirmed conviction for ganja possession despite hostile independent witnesses. Reliable police testimony was not legally dependent on independent corroboration, and the record established statutory procedural compliance and sample identity. A sample-number discrepancy was clerical on the evidence. Failure to establish motorcycle ownership or later recover it did not defeat proved recovery from the accused. The Court declined reduction of the five-year sentence.
Issues
- Whether trustworthy official evidence supported conviction despite hostile independent witnesses.
- Whether procedural and sample-identification objections undermined the recovery.
- Whether vehicle ownership or further sentence reduction was necessary.
Held
- Official witnesses are not inherently untrustworthy, and independent corroboration is not an indispensable legal requirement. The police witnesses here were reliable, thoroughly cross-examined and unconnected with any alleged enmity; hostile panchnama witnesses did not defeat their evidence. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.2)
- The witness evidence established compliance with Sections 42 and 55. The samples recovered and sealed from the appellant were proved to be those sent for forensic examination; the isolated alternative label in a memorandum was a clerical error in light of the treasury and other records. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2)
- The same-informant-and-investigator argument was not pressed after Mukesh Singh overruled the relied-on precedent. Independently, it failed on facts because a different officer investigated after the FIR was registered. (¶ 10)
- Proved recovery of contraband from the accused at the spot was material; vehicle ownership was not an essential element of the possession offence. Failure to prove ownership or subsequently recover the motorcycle did not invalidate this prosecution. (¶ 11)
- Considering the statutory objective, available maximum punishment and the sentence already imposed, the Court rejected the request to reduce imprisonment to time served. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment with Rs.25,000 fine and the stipulated default imprisonment affirmed.